Stare decisis
Overview Stare decisis is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions. In the United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated: In other words, stare decisis applies to the holding of a case, rather than to obiter dicta. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated: "dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding."Central Green Co. v. United States, 531 U.S. 425 (2001) (full-text) (citation omitted). In the U.S. Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is most flexible in constitutional cases: For example, in the years 1946–92, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases.Congressional Res. Serv., Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decision (1992) (full-text). The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows: Principle The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as "mandatory authority") which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally.Keenan Kmiec, "The Origin and Current Meanings of 'Judicial Activism," California Law Review (2004): Vertical stare decisis Generally, a common law court system has trial courts, intermediate appellate courts and a supreme court. The inferior courts conduct almost all trial proceedings. The inferior courts are bound to obey precedents established by the appellate court for their jurisdiction, and all supreme court precedent. The Supreme Court of California's explanation of this principle is that Appellate courts are only bound to obey Supreme Court decisions. The application of the doctrine of stare decisis from a superior court to an inferior court is sometimes called vertical stare decisis. However, in federal systems the division between federal and local law may result in complex interactions. For example, state courts in the United States are not considered inferior to Federal courts but rather constitute a parallel court system. While state courts must defer to federal courts on issues within federal jurisdiction such as constitutional issues, federal courts must defer to state courts on issues of state law. Horizontal stare decisis The idea that a judge is bound by (or at least should respect) decisions of earlier judges of similar or coordinate level is called horizontal stare decisis. In the United States federal court system, the intermediate appellate courts are divided into "circuits". Each panel of judges on the court of appeals for a circuit is bound to obey the prior appellate decisions of the same circuit. Precedents of a United States court of appeals may be overruled only by the court en banc, that is, a session of all the active appellate judges of the circuit, or by the U.S. Supreme Court. When a court binds itself, this application of the doctrine of precedent is sometimes called "horizontal stare decisis." The State of New York has a similar appellate structure as it is divided into four appellate departments supervised by the final New York State Court of Appeals. Decisions of one appellate department are not binding upon another, and in some cases the departments differ considerably on interpretations of law. References See also * Collateral estoppel * Precedent * Res judicata Category:Litigation